Minor Thesis Presentation By: Junaid M. Shaikh Supervisor: Dr. Ivan Lee 1.

Minor Thesis Presentation

By: Junaid M. ShaikhSupervisor: Dr. Ivan Lee

1

A Comparative Analysis of Routing

Protocols in VANET Environment

Using

2

OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION RESEARCH OBJECTIVES WORKFLOW SIMULATIONS DEMO RESULTS EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS FUTURE WORK

3

INTRODUCTION

Technology is moving us from wired to wireless networks Structured Networks (WLAN) Unstructured Networks (Mobile Ad hoc Network - MANET)

Vehicular Ad hoc Network – VANET

4

VANET

Vehicles form network Vehicles equipped with

Wireless transceivers Computerized control modules

Roadside Units Drop point Geographically relevant data Gateway to internet

VANET Scenario (Source: MoNet Lab)

5

VANET APPLICATIONS

Safety Accident avoidance warnings Rapid rescue service

Convenience Detour information Toll road payments Geographically-oriented local information

Entertainment Internet access Multimedia entertainment V2V Communication

6

RESEARCH CONSIDERATION

Network Layer Ad hoc Routing Protocols

Proactive (routes update periodically) DSDV

Reactive (routes update on-demand) AODV AOMDV DSR

Nodes Movement

7

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Analyzing data dissemination in VANETs Identify and Study Routing Protocols in VANET

Highest Delivery Ratio Lowest End-to-End Delay

Mobility Models Deploy realistic vehicular traces

Obtained: Multi-agent microscopic traffic simulator (MMTS) Developed: K. Nagel (at ETH Zurich) Available for research community

8

NS-2 (Network Simulator)

Network simulator targeted at networking research Almost complete OSI features with open-source Simulation components

Nodes (hardware entities) Agents (software entities; TCP, UDP) Links (for nodes connections) Traffic generators (source, sink)

Simulation operations Event scheduler Network creation Tracing, etc

9

WORKFLOW

TCL File with support of Mobility Patterns, Comm. Paradigms, Reliability constraints, and Related Parameters

NS-2 Simulator

Mobility and Traffic Generator

Compile

Multiple Trace & NAM Files

Trace File Analysis (Preferably AWK Script)

City Scenario Highway Scenario

AODV

AOMDV

DSR

DSDV

10

SIMULATIONS

City Model Density Levels

Low Medium High

Highway Model Density Levels

Low Medium High

11

CITY MODEL (Parameters)

Common Parameters

Variable Value

Simulation time 300 s

Topology size 4000 m x 7000 m

Routing Protocols AODV, AOMDV, DSR, DSDV

Traffic Type TCP

Specific Parameters

Density Level Variable

No. of Nodes Max. Connections

Low 12 8

Medium 260 150

High 812 150

12

CITY MODEL (Mobility Traces)

Google Map View Simulator View

13

HIGHWAY MODEL (Parameters)

Common Parameters

Variable Value

Simulation time 300 s

Topology size 14000 m x 10000 m

Routing Protocols AODV, AOMDV, DSR, DSDV

Traffic Type TCP

Specific Parameters

Density Level Variable

No. of Nodes Max. Connections

Low 370 150

Medium 837 150

High 1112 150

14

HIGHWAY MODEL (Mobility Traces)

Google Map View Simulator View

15

DEMO

CITY HIGHWAY

16

CITY

17

HIGHWAY

18

TRACE FILE & AWK SCRIPT

M 0.01000 7 (3076.65, 4672.97, 0.00), (3198.59, 4629.61), 13.65s 2.556838879 _1_ AGT --- 0 cbr 512 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:0 2:0 32 0] [0] 0 0r 2.556838879 _1_ RTR --- 0 cbr 512 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:0 2:0 32 0] [0] 0 0s 2.560742394 _1_ RTR --- 1 DSR 32 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:255 2:255 32 0] 1 [1 1] [0 1 0 0->0] [0 0 0 0->0]r 2.561962728 _4_ RTR --- 1 DSR 32 [0 ffffffff 1 800] ------- [1:255 2:255 32 0] 1 [1 1] [0 1 0 0->0] [0 0 0 0->0]r 2.561963021 _6_ RTR --- 1 DSR 32 [0 ffffffff 1 800] ------- [1:255 2:255 32 0] 1 [1 1] [0 1 0 0->0] [0 0 0 0->0]s 2.604736825 _1_ RTR --- 2 DSR 32 [0 0 0 0] ------- [1:255 2:255 32 0] 1 [1 2] [0 2 0 0->16] [0 0 0 0->0]

19

RESULTS (CITY)

City Model 3 Density levels 4 Routing protocols 12 Trace files

Routing Metrics Packet Delivery Ratio Average End-to-End Delay

20

RESULTS (CITY)

21

RESULTS (CITY)

22

RESULTS (HIGHWAY)

Highway Model 3 Density levels 4 Routing protocols 12 Trace files

Routing Metrics Packet Delivery Ratio Average End-to-End Delay

23

RESULTS (HIGHWAY)

24

RESULTS (HIGHWAY)

25

Weighted Evaluation Matrix

EVALUATION

Routing Protocols Weighting

Factor

Evaluative Routing Metrics

Total ScorePacket Delivery Ratio Average End-to-End Delay

Rating Score Rating Score

AODV4 4 16 2 8 24

AOMDV4 4 16 2 8 24

DSDV3 2 6 3 9 15

DSR2 1 2 4 8 10

26

CONCLUSIONS

Through major aspects of rigorous simulations followed by certain evaluations,

AODV and AOMDV remained preferable for both city and highway scenarios used in for this project.

DSDV good in city scene but not suitable for highway DSR remained acceptable only for E2E delay

27

FUTURE WORK

Mobility Traces Adelaide’s Data

Utilize Test Bed New routing protocols

28

Thank you for listening. Q&A

29